ArticleJournal of vision2024
TORONTO: A trial-oriented multidimensional psychometric testing algorithm.
Article in Journal of vision, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Devising and Evaluating an Adaptive Static-Automated Perimetry Test for Children: A Feasibility Study.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bayesian adaptive methods for sensory threshold determination were conceived originally to track a single threshold. When applied to the testing of vision, they do not exploit the spatial patterns that underlie thresholds at different locations in the visual field. Exploiting these patterns has been recognized as key to further improving visual field test efficiency. We present a new approach (TORONTO) that outperforms other existing methods in terms of speed and accuracy. TORONTO generalizes the QUEST/ZEST algorithm to estimate simultaneously multiple thresholds. After each trial, without waiting for a fully determined threshold, the trial-oriented approach updates not only the location currently tested but also all other locations based on patterns in a reference data set. Since the availability of reference data can be limited, techniques are developed to overcome this limitation. TORONTO was evaluated using computer-simulated visual field tests: In the reliable condition (false positive [FP] = false negative [FN] = 3%), the median termination and root mean square error (RMSE) of TORONTO was 153 trials and 2.0 dB, twice as fast with equal accuracy as ZEST. In the FP = FN = 15% condition, TORONTO terminated in 151 trials and was 2.2 times faster than ZEST with better RMSE (2.6 vs. 3.7 dB). In the FP = FN = 30% condition, TORONTO achieved 4.2 dB RMSE in 148 trials, while all other techniques had > 6.5 dB RMSE and terminated much slower. In conclusion, TORONTO is a fast and accurate algorithm for determining multiple thresholds under a wide range of reliability and subject conditions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.